The cost of proper lubing

by

One typically thinks of improvement initiatives in the context of cost . . . or more accurately, an investment made with the assumption that it will deliver downstream dividends.

Investments made to improve the quality of machinery lubrication can deliver tremendous returns to the organization in the form of improved equipment reliability. Just cleaning up the oil, in many cases, can double or triple the life of mechanical equipment. However, in my experience, the savings are not limited to improving equipment life. I believe it actually costs less money to lubricate machines properly than it does to lubricate them poorly.

As a consultant and educator in the area of machinery lubrication, I often hear the excuse that management won’t approve the “added cost” to improve equipment lubrication methods.

Well, what if you threw out all of your old ideas, put the money you currently spend in a pot and redeploy the same number of dollars in completely new ways, employing new practices and technologies?  My belief is that you would significantly improve the overall quality of lubrication and spend less money doing it. Here are just a few examples and opportunities:

Eliminate gearbox oil changes: In most plants, gearbox lubes are changed once or twice a year. This is because these plants have always done it that way, or they are trying to remove contaminants (which, by the way, doesn’t work very well). Changing the oil twice per year in a gearbox with a 50-gallon sump will probably cost $1,000 to $1,200 per year, fully burdened.

Throwing out the rule book, on a quarterly basis, one could clean the oil using a portable filter cart, perform oil analysis and change the oil based on condition for a fully burdened price of $500 to $600 per year.

The gearbox lasts longer because the lubricant is cleaner; oil analysis provides valuable information about the machine’s condition; and, the task is moved from downtime to runtime, helping reduce the workload during busy scheduled outages. The asset’s reliability is improved and you save $500 or more per year per gearbox in the process.

Condition-based greasing of bearings: Greased bearings, such as those found in electric motors, need adequate lubrication, right?  Well, over-greasing bearings is one of the biggest cause for motor failures. In most plants, bearings receive too much grease too often. To properly lubricate a bearing —and I emphasize the word “properly” — takes some time. In a fraction of the time, however, a bearing can be scanned with an ultrasonic device (one that reads out in decibels and is tuned to the right frequency) to determine if relubrication is required. If it’s not required, move on.

In many cases, I believe labor can be cut 20 percent to 60 percent, and lubricant consumption might be reduced by even more. In the process of saving money, the bearings are lubricated better and more reliably; and ultrasonic monitoring provides additional information about the health of the bearing.

 During the early stages of the quality movement of the 1980s, most firms assumed they would have to spend more to deliver high quality. Many were surprised to learn that improving quality often carries a rebate, not a cost, because it forces the organization to do things right, and get it right the first time. I am convinced that precision maintenance, including machinery lubrication, yields similar conclusions.

By working smarter, not harder, and replacing old lubrication processes with new and better ones that incorporate new knowledge and technology, you can improve the reliability of your equipment and save money in the process.

Try throwing a little of your savings into the education of your lubrication technicians, and free up some of their time for inspection. Imagine the opportunities they will uncover and the ideas they will generate once they are skilled and given the time to focus on improvement initiatives!

Drew Troyer is the senior editor of Machinery Lubrication Magazine. If you have a lubrication or oil analysis question, contact Coach Troyer at or e-mail .

This article appeared in the April/May 2002 issue of MRO Today magazine. Copyright, 2002.

Back to top Back to MRO Coach archives